A STUDENT-FOCUSED CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF TURNITIN SOFTWARE: UNDERSTANDING ITS ROLE AS A LEARNING TOOL
Abstract
This paper presents a critical analysis of Turnitin software, exploring its role as a tool for learning from a student-centered perspective. Turnitin is widely utilized in academic institutions to detect plagiarism and ensure the integrity of written work. However, its impact extends beyond merely serving as a deterrent against academic dishonesty; it also offers significant opportunities for enhancing learning outcomes. This study examines the functionalities of Turnitin, including originality reports and peer feedback mechanisms, and evaluates how these features can foster students' understanding of proper citation practices, enhance their writing skills, and promote academic integrity. Additionally, the paper addresses the concerns and criticisms raised by students regarding the software, such as the potential for false positives, the impact on creativity, and the overall effectiveness of its feedback. By synthesizing qualitative and quantitative data from student surveys and academic literature, this analysis aims to provide insights into the effectiveness of Turnitin as a learning tool and its implications for student development. Ultimately, the findings suggest that when used appropriately, Turnitin can serve as a valuable resource for promoting academic success and fostering a culture of integrity in higher education.
Keywords
Turnitin, plagiarism detection, academic integrityHow to Cite
References
Amos, K., & McGowan, U. (2012). Integrating academic reading and writing skills development with core content in science and engineering. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education.
Ball, S.J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy, policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy and health behaviour. In A. Baum, S. Newman, J. Wienman, R. West, & C. McManus (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psychology, health and medicine (pp. 160-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bhatia, V.K., (2010). Interdiscursivity in professional communication. Discourse and Communciation, 4 (1), 32-50.
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7-74.
Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing: networked computers in ESL writing classes. Computers and Composition, 14(1), 45–58.
Charmaz, K. (2003). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies for qualitative inquiry (2nd Ed) (pp. 249-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chew, E., Jones, N., & Blackey, H. (2009). A UK Case Study – Technology enhances educational experiences in the University of Glamorgan. Future Computer and Communication 2009, 212-216.
Cho, K. & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: a web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48, 409–426.
Coffey, S. & Anyinam, C. (2012). Trialing a contextual approach to academic honesty. Nurse Education, 37(2), 62-66.
Crowther, S., Ironside, P, Spence, D., & Smythe, L. (2017). Crafting stories in Hermeneutic Phenomenology Research: A methodological device. Qualitative Health Research, 27 (6), 826-835.
Deane, P., Odendahl, N., Quinlan, T., Fowles, M., Welsh, C., & Bivens-Tatum, J. (2008). Cognitive models of writing: Writing proficiency as a complex integrated skill. ETS RR-08-55. Retrieved 21st July 2017 from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-08-55.pdf.
Douglass, B., & Moustalcas, C. (1985). Heuristic inquiry: The internal search to know. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 25(3), 39–55.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428-1446.
Evans, C. & Waring, M. (2011). Student teacher assessment feedback preferences: The influence of cognitive styles and gender. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(3), 271-280.
Gibbs, G.R., (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. London: Sage.
Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 81-112.
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Earle Derek Abrahamson
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
